SRI. B N GIRISH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 27279 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. B N GIRISH
S/O. LATE B. M. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
WORKING AS TAHSILDAR,
GRADE - I OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA COMPLEX,
BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT - 562 160,
BANGALORE MYSORE ROAD,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 4,
BETTADAHALLI, KABBALIGERE POST,
ARKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 130.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 011.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
M. S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA A S, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 20/05/2026 (ANNEXURE-L), ISSUE WRIT OR
ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/05/2026
BEARING NO. E-KUME 04 ADE 2026 (E-2033998) ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT. NO. 1 (ANNEXURE- L) AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PURSUANT THERETO, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITYC) PASS ANY SUCH OTHER
ORDER, WHICH THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT, INCLUDING
THE COST OF THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking to impugn the
order dated 20.05.2026 (Annexure-L to the writ petition) which
is passed by the first respondent - State under Section 17A of
1
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , whereunder the State
1
Hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
has permitted the third respondent - Lokayuktha to investigate
the complaint against the petitioner.
2. The factual matrix in a nutshell leading to the
present petition is that the petitioner - a Tahsildar was posted
to work at Mysuru Taluk vide order dated 07.04.2022
(Annexure-B to the Writ Petition), consequent to which the
petitioner has discharged his duties as Tahsildar, Mysuru from
09.04.2022 to 05.01.2024. While the petitioner was discharging
his duties as Tahsildar, Mysuru, he has passed the order dated
17.10.2023 (Annexure-F to the writ petition). Vide the said
order, the petitioner directed change of khata with respect to a
larger extent of 4 acres 36 guntas of land in Survey No.155,
2
Kyathamaranahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk by directing
an extent of 2 acres 18 guntas to be changed in favour of the
3
Mysuru Urban Development Authority and the remaining
extent of 2 acres 18 guntas in the name of one Giriya Bhovi,
who was stated to be the original grantee of the land.
3. It is alleged that while passing the said order dated
17.10.2023, the petitioner has ignored the earlier order dated
2
Hereinafter referred to as 'subject property'
3
Hereinafter referred to as 'MUDA'
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
27.08.2012 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) passed by the
Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka
4
Land Revenue Act, 1964 as well as the order dated 31.07.2015
passed by the then Tahsildar, Mysuru. It was further alleged
that the said order dated 17.10.2023 was passed against a
dead person, inasmuch as the first respondent in the order
dated 17.10.2023 was one Shivachikkayya, who is stated to
have died on 08.08.2016.
4. It is the vehement contention on behalf of the
petitioner that the petitioner while passing the order dated
17.10.2023 merely discharged his quasi-judicial functions
under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the
discharge of his duties as a quasi-judicial authority cannot be
the subject matter of an investigation. Reliance is placed by the
petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh &
5
Ors., . It is further contended that the prior orders passed
with regard to the subject property were not brought to the
notice of the petitioner and that consequent to a
4
Hereinafter referred to as 'Land Revenue Act'
5
Civil Appeal No.10590/2024 - Judgment dated 01.04.2025
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
confirmation/endorsement dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure-C to
the writ petition) the petitioner has passed the order dated
17.10.2023. Hence, it is contended that there cannot be any
wrongdoings alleged against the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2 - State as well as the learned counsel for the third
respondent - Lokayuktha vehemently opposing the present writ
petition contend that consequent to the permission sought for
by the Lokayuktha from the State Government on 03.12.2025,
the State Government has independently sought for a report
from the Deputy Commissioner vis-a-vis the allegations against
the petitioner and after considering the said report, the State
Government by adequately noticing that the allegations against
the petitioner requires investigation, has granted
permission/consent to the Lokayuktha to investigate the
allegations against the petitioner so as to ascertain the truth of
the matter.
6. Learned counsel for the third respondent -
Lokayuktha would further specifically contend that although the
reliance is placed by the petitioner on the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
communication/endorsement dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure-C to
the writ petition), the same is not available in the official
files/records and the said document, which is styled as
"Antarika Tippani", is on a plain sheet of paper and is produced
by the petitioner for the first time in the present writ petition. It
is further submitted that the said Tippani dated 24.02.2023 is
not referred to in the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the
petitioner, which is currently the subject matter of the enquiry.
7. The submissions of the learned counsels have been
considered and the material on record have been perused.
8. It is forthcoming that an extent of 4 acres 36
guntas in Survey No. 155 of the subject property was mutated
in favour of one Shivachikkayya, which was the subject matter
of challenge in proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Land
Revenue Act by one Sri.Kodandaiah. The Assistant
Commissioner, Mysuru, by order dated 27.08.2012 (Annexure-
A to the writ petition) allowed the appeal and directed the
Tahsildar to scrutinize the records and pass appropriate orders.
One Sri. Mahadev submitted a representation dated 14.08.2023
(Annexure-D to the writ petition) to the Tahsildar, Mysuru with
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
regard to steps that were to be taken consequent to the order
of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.08.2012. The
petitioner purportedly considering the representation of
Sri.Mahadev is stated to have passed the order dated
17.10.2023. The said order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the
petitioner was the subject matter of challenge before the
Assistant Commissioner in proceedings under Section 136(2) of
the Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order
dated 04.09.2024 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) partly
allowed the said appeal. The said orders were the subject
matter of challenge before the Deputy Commissioner. Vide the
order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure-K to the writ petition) the
Deputy Commissioner set aside the order dated 17.10.2023
and confirmed the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner.
9. It is forthcoming from a perusal of the order dated
19.02.2025 that the Deputy Commissioner had noticed that the
first respondent in the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the
petitioner, i.e., Sri Shivachikkayya had died on 08.08.2016 and
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
that the said order dated 17.10.2023 was passed against a
dead person.
10. It is further forthcoming from the impugned order
dated 20.05.2026 that the State Government has noticed the
fact that the petitioner had suppressed an earlier order dated
31.07.2015 passed by then Tahsildar, Mysuru. Further, it was
noticed that the order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the
petitioner was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner vide
order dated 19.02.2025. The impugned order dated 20.05.2026
also notices various aspects of wrongdoings on behalf of the
petitioner which were placed on record vide the report
furnished by the Deputy Commissioner, which was secured at
the instance of the State Government. The same clearly
indicates that there was an application of mind on behalf of the
State Government before the impugned order dated
20.05.2026 has been passed.
11. Further, although it is the vehement contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that only consequent to
the confirmation that the petitioner has received vide the
Tippani dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), the
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
petitioner passed the order in question dated 17.10.2023, as
rightly submitted by the learned counsel for third respondent -
Lokayuktha, there is no reference to the said Tippani in the
order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-F to the writ petition)
passed by the petitioner. Further, the said Tippani dated
24.02.2023 is on a plain sheet of paper and the said aspect of
the matter is to be the subject matter of an investigation that is
to be conducted consequent to the impugned order dated
20.05.2026.
12. Although it is the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
5
Amresh Srivastava , it is pertinent to note that in the said
judgment reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs.
6
K.K.Dhawan . At this juncture, it is pertinent to notice Para 19
of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
6
K.K.Dhawan , which reads as under:
6
( 1993) 2 SCC 56
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
"19. The above case, therefore, is an authority for the
proposition that disciplinary proceedings could be
initiated against the Government servant even with
regard to exercise of quasi-judicial powers provided:
(i) The act or omission is such as to reflect on the
reputation of the Government servant for his integrity
or good faith or devotion to duty, or
(ii) there is prima facie material manifesting
recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of the
official duty, or
(iii) the officer had failed to act honestly or in good
faith or had omitted to observe the prescribed
conditions which are essential for the exercise of
statutory power."
13. It is clear from the aforementioned that the
6
Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Dhawan has clearly held
that even in exercise of quasi-judicial power, if an officer has
failed to act honestly or in good faith, further action could be
initiated.
5
14. The case of Amresh Shrivastav a would not aid
the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as in the said case it was
held that the order passed by the concerned officer in exercise
of quasi-judicial functions was held not to have been influenced
by extraneous factors or gratification. However, in the present
case, it is forthcoming from the impugned order dated
20.05.2026 passed under Section 17A of the PC Act that there
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59271
WP No. 27279 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010605502026
is sufficient material against the petitioner which is required to
be investigated by the concerned authorities.
15. Accordingly, the relief sought for by the petitioner
in the present request does not merit consideration. Hence, the
writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
16. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.
Digitally Signed by CHEPPUDIRA
MONNAPPA POONACHA
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
ND
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28